Talk:Princess Theatre (Edmonton)

	Princess Theatre (Edmonton) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 30, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed June 8, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Canada: Alberta Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Princess Theatre (Edmonton)/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick read of the article. It appears to be quite readable and pitched at or about GA-level, so it should stand a good chance of making GA-status this time round. However, at this stage the

The main body of the article appears to well reference, well illustrated and apparently compliant with

I intend to consider the article section by section, but leaving further consideration the Lead until the end of the article.

Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Silent era -
  • Early years under J.W. McKernan -

• Considered on its own; this subsection is generally OK and is well referenced: based on a mix of contemporary accounts (newspapers, etc). It starts at "first night" and reaches 1919: discussing a mixture of fixtures, fittings and performances; but and there are two items pre-opening: cost and 10 months building time.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - There are a few, possibly minor, details that are missing or appear out of nowhere. For instance: The architect (and their other works) is mentioned in the Lead and the infobox, but not here. Mention is made of "Revenues from the rental spaces in the basement and upper floors had also begun to flow in. Notably, Hugh Morrow, a beat cop, had leased apartment 205.", but there is no mention that the building had a basement and apartments (above the public areas). I'm not sure what to make of apartment 205, presumably its on the 2nd floor hence a 200-series number but how many apartments (odds and evens: 1 to 5 possibly more, or just odds: 1, 3, 5 and possibly more). Note: the Theatre closes section mentions third floor apartments, so these are possibly the 200-series apartments.[reply]

Done. Added basic description of the layout of the building. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Alexander Entwisle -

• No additional comments: I already mentioned that basement, above, and it appears here again.

• Arrival of the sound era -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - Generally (fully) compliant, but I have one comment about the statement: "Despite several sources claiming otherwise,[18][8][28] the first talkie in Edmonton was screened at the Capitol Theatre on Jasper Avenue,[24] not the Princess, and was Mother Knows Best,[24] not The Canary Murder Case." Refs 8, 18 and 24 were published in/by the Edmonton Journal and 28 was in the Edmonton Real Estate Weekly. Why is the Edmonton Journal considered a reliable source once and an unreliable source twice? Note: looking at the two illustrations, the claims over which was first seems to be based on advertisements, the performances might not have taken place on the advertised dates/times.[reply]

Done. Changed as per our discussion below. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Theatre closes and Silent era -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - The theatre closes section (as is the earlier Silent era) is confusing in respect of building geometry/layout. The description "Princess block" is used here but "McKernan Block" is used in the Lead. There is a distinction between "property" and "theatre space", but neither is defined. "Theatre space at 10337" is used, and uses of the basement, theatre space, second and third floor are discussed, but no explanation of which floor(s) the theatre occupied.[reply]

Done. See above. Also explicitly stated that McKernan block was later known as Princess Block. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - It needs to be made clear somewhere: what the block was (and its address), what floors were used by the theatre when first opened (and its address - presumably 10337), what other floors were present in the building and their uses. Note: the uses of the basement is quite clear, its the rest that are not clear.[reply]

Done. As stated, there has been no consistent numbering of the address. For most of its history the theatre's address has been 10337 (sometimes 10335, sometimes no number), but other properties have had a variety of other numbers. The current address is 10337, and the Princess is the sole tenant of the building. The current address is in the lead and the infobox and should be sufficient after having added the basic floorplan (should now be obvious that there were other addresses in the building). I would consider any clarification on this point to be a violation of WP:WIAGA 3(b). --Rawlangs (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'll try to address your comments in order:

1. Silent Era: Early years under J.W. McKernan The concern that there are items in this section "pre-opening" does not seem to be applicable to GA discussion. The heading of the section is "Early years" not "Opening night", and the sentence syntax (had cost, had taken) clearly places the cost and build time before opening night. There should be no confusion here about chronology and the information probably belongs in this section. There is not enough information on the construction of the building in my opinion to expand these details into another subsection. As for the building details, I will try to integrate some details to make the layout clearer. For now: the building is three stories tall and has a basement (should be clear from photos of exterior). The theatre is currently the sole occupant of the building. The theatre entrance has always been on the ground floor. It leads directly into the lobby which occupies one floor. The theatre space (the space where films are actually projected) is two stories high and extends from the lobby wall to the back of the building. The second floor apartments were very small (only projecting as far as the lobby) and were squeezed between the facade and the second floor projection booth. These were renovated into washrooms in the 90s. The third floor is a full floor that extends over top of the lobby and theatre. Since at least the 90s, it has been unoccupied and is currently full of old seats and foam insulation. I have no published references for this information, only first hand discussion with the theatre manager, and thus cannot include any of it in the article (original research). The building has had several floor plans over the years, meaning that none of the spaces have been consistently numbered. There is probably not enough information available to detail every one of those floor plans. Even if there were, I think the inclusion of such a section would be ill advised, as such details are probably not of historical interest to anyone. As for the basement, it was a retail space for most of building's history, and was later converted to a small second theatre space. I'm a little confused that the basement is a point of contention. Every building in Edmonton has a basement. If it didn't, there would be nowhere to connect utilities, the pipes would be frozen 7 months out of the year.

• Y
  WP:Lead) implies that the building is important, even the architect and his other works appears there. About one quarter of this section is building-related but its mostly about fittings and features and impressing the customers. The basement and upper floors don't appear to be considered from a building point of view, they are mentioned in-passing as revenue streams (see also my comments on Theatre in crisis). You can write this section in the way that you have done it, I don't have any serious problems with the current text. However I would suggest that the flow of this section could be improved. One way of doing it would be to add a bit to the first paragraph, e.g. The Princess opened as a single-screen cinema on March 8, 1915 to rave reviews.[12] It had cost McKernan CDN$75,000 and had taken 10 months to build, longer than expected.[13] The building contained the usual basement area, that was rented out, and the upper floors contained some apartments. The theatre opened with 660 seats and the largest ...... This is merely one suggested solution. Pyrotec (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Done. See above. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Arrival of the sound era Good question! As with many questions about references, the answer is fairly complicated. In brief, The Edmonton Journal started digitally indexing the full text of its articles in 1989, meaning that anyone writing articles about the Princess would be able to find Warren Tasker's "It has taken 70 years for the Princess to reach it's 'Golden Age'" almost instantly, while they would have to dig deep for the older stuff out of the Journal and Edmonton Bulletin, which was never indexed. It took me a week of searching microfilm in two archives and two libraries to find all of my pre-1989 sources. So, Mr. Tasker (or his researcher) didn't dig particularly deep in 1989 and made a mistake. That indexed, easily sourced article was then used as a source for every future article about the Princess, and the mistake was repeated over and over. The Journal has been Edmonton's only paper of record since acquiring the Edmonton Bulletin. I implicitly trust it. However, I was able (by accident) to uncover this error, and chose to rate the earlier primary sources as more reliable than the later secondary ones. The screening most certainly did take place. The reference ""Talkies Are Approved At New Capitol". Edmonton Bulletin: pp. 13. March 28, 1929.", whose full text is displayed as one of the illustrations, is an article, not an advertisement which makes reference to the exhibition of Mother Knows Best the previous evening. It also makes it clear that this was the first talkie in Edmonton. I reference this article a sentence after the one you take issue with. It is impossible to conclude that the Journal was anything but mistaken in this case.

• Y
  WP:WIAGA 2(b). Based on the references provided in the text, it is perfectly reasonable to ask why: the Edmonton Journal is considered a reliable source on one occasion and not a unreliable source on two other occasions? Pyrotec (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Done. See above. Also included a ref to "Talkies Are Approved" in the main text to help clarify. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Theatre closes and Silent era I will try to make this clearer. The building was opened as the J.W. McKernan block, but the public quickly associated the building more with the Princess Theatre than its owner. I tried to be consistent: property refers to the entire building (theatre, basement, apartments) whereas theatre space refers exclusively to the Princess Theatre. Unfortunately, any discussion of the theatre is incomplete without discussing the building. For the purposes of the article, McKernan Block is used interchangeably with Princess Block. I stop using McKernan Block around the time newspaper articles stop referring to the building as such. As mentioned, the addresses have changed many (many) times over the years as the floor plan was repeatedly altered (walls were added and removed; the theatre was split into several business spaces; the balcony became apartments; the second floor was apartments, then two businesses, then one business, then two businesses again, etc.) Detailing what people / businesses occupied what spaces would be uninteresting (a lot of people unimportant to the building's history, a lot of failed small businesses). I refer to the theatre space at 10337 because that is the theatre's current address. There is not enough material here to expand to another section. Please give a list of specific areas you would like to see improvement in and I will fill in the gaps as best I can. If I'm wrong and a detailed chronology of the uses of the various spaces is really necessary, I can add it, but it will be long, dry, necessarily incomplete, and will take a very long time to compile. I can't however think of another building article on the wiki that requires this level of detail. The Chrysler Building article is GA passed and has a list of three notable tenants, but not an exhaustive historical list or a detailed floor plan. Princess Theatre (Edmonton) already goes into much more detail than that article.

• Y
  WP:WIAGA not against similar articles that have been previously awarded GA-status. Articles can (and do) become degraded over time and GA-status can be withdrawn if the article is later found to be non-compliant. The Gillender Building had the potential of becoming a good GA, and would have needed little work to get it up to standard, but it never happened. Pyrotec (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Done. I clarified the statements in the paragraph in question. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work thus far! --Rawlangs (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments (continued)

• Klondike Theatre -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - The "Rialto Theatre movie listing ledger", referenced five times, leads to the Provincial Archives of Alberta web page which displays: "An error has occurred There is no data to display".[reply]

Done. Link has been simplified, but if you still can't open it, it's possibly region locked. The information in reference is enough to verify the source, so the problem can be fixed by removing the link if it's still not accessible to you. --Rawlangs (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - Is it possible to be more precise when the blue movies started? The article currently reads: "The theatre reopened on Christmas Day 1971 ...... But by 1972, family friendly programming had been replaced by “blue movies”". Did the family programmmming only last for one week - that's one interpretation?[reply]

Done. It is probably possible, but after near exhaustive research on this topic I was not able to be more precise. The Rialto Theatre Ledger stops early in 1972, and at that point there was still a mix of programming. Sometime between 1972 and its rebranding as the Princess, it became a porn theatre exclusively. The text has been updated to less ambiguously reflect the vague timeframe supported by available sources. --Rawlangs (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Old Strathcona Foundation -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - Both the Old Strathcona Foundation and Frank Grisdale appear without an explanation, this needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, I've never heard of them and there is (as yet) no wikipedi article on the Old Strathcona Foundation. Was Frank a notable person, perhaps a journalist? The same paragraph makes it clear that he became director, but from reading this article is not clear why he wrote a paper, which lead to him becoming its director.[reply]

Done. I have included edits explaining that the Old Strathcona Foundation was at that time a publicly funded community development initiative. Explained that Grisdale was a member of the general public. Made it clearer that Grisdale wrote the paper in response to Foundation's solicitation. --Rawlangs (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Theatre in crisis -

• Y
  WP:WIAGA clauses 3(a) & (b). I assume that it is, since the Lead mentions a two-screen art-house cinema and this section states: "Paisley’s Fringe Theatre Event, which he founded while still working out of this space in 1982. This event was the original Edmonton International Fringe Festival, now the largest event of its kind in North America" and it seems to be the first use of the basement as a theatre. I'm going to consider that it is important. On this basis: -[reply
  ]

It is important. Paisley founded the largest independent theatre festival in North America out of the basement space, as stated in the article. You were wondering whether Grisdale was important due to a lack of detail. Now, when I mention another manager, explain his background, his links to the theatre, his history with the theatre (who he is and why he's important), you take issue. Without further clarification of your concern, I don't have an inkling what the problem is. Satisfies 3(a) and (b) in my reading... --Rawlangs (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - We are lopping backwards now into the Chinock theatre, which seems to come and go "unnoticed". The first paragraph states: (Paisley) became the manager in early 1994.[46] Paisley’s history with the Princess extends back to 1980, when he operated the Chinook Theatre out of the basement"; and the last mention of the basement was back in 1996: "The basement was still a pool hall, Princess Billiards.". The final two paragraphs state: "entire theatre staff as laid off in December" and "The theatre did not take long to fall into major disrepair"; and in Magic Lantern Theatres, it states "... and in 1999 unveiled The Princess II in Chinook Theatre’s old space". Possibly the Chinook Theatre started under the Old Strathcona Foundation, there is no way of knowing from this article; and its not clear whether it closed in December (1996 or 1997?), or later.[reply]

Done. Chinook theatre was important in hindsight. Edmonton had a huge variety of small theatres in the 1970s and 80s as culture funding was readily available. The basement was a pool-hall operated under a dozen different names between the 1920s and the late 70s, and there is unfortunately no way of knowing when the last of these closed, as this would not have been a large enough event to merit newspaper coverage. The Fringe Theatre festival is ongoing, so Chinook never closed. It did, however, move at some point in 1983. I have updated the text to reflect this fact, and hopefully it is now less ambiguous. There is, unfortunately, no way of citing the exact date it moved, or even the year the last poolhall closed. Should be clearer now. --Rawlangs (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - The last but one paragraph is slightly unclear: it states "The entire theatre staff was laid off in December, but it could be 1996 or 1997. It's also not clear whether it is referring only to the Princes theatre, the "entire theatre staff" might be read as including the Chinook Theatre. This is also a single-sentence paragraph. Can it be merged with the paragraph before or the one after?[reply]

Done. I have added more precise dates to the section when available and moved text as appropriate. Should be clearer. --Rawlangs (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - Furthermore, the three paragraphs, starting with The Old Strathcona Foundation was running a major deficit by 1996 ... and ending with The entire theatre staff was laid off in December ... are unclear and need to be reconsidered. The first one states that "theatre was sold", the second states "Magic Lantern Theatres offered to buy the Princess for $500,000 on Christmas Eve 1996, voiding the sale under a provision in the Foundation’s contract with the Brars. However, the Brars exercised an option to match any higher bids, and the sale went through in early January 1997.[55].." and the third one states: "The entire theatre staff was laid off in December once it became clear that the Brars were seriously considering purchasing the theatre,..."[reply]

Done. This makes more sense in light of recent edits. Specified the mechanism by which Magic Lantern was able to void the sale. --Rawlangs (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Magic Lantern Theatres -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK

• Whyte Avenue multiplex debate -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC) - Alliance Atlantis are mentioned in passing as if it is obvious who they are. Perhaps it is Alliance Atlantis, if so it should have a wikilink.[reply]

Done. Yes, it is that Alliance Atlantis. Added wikilink. --Rawlangs (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The
  WP:Lead
  -

• This is intended to both introduce the article and provide a summary of the main points. In particular: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

• The statement: "(it) was designed by Edmonton architects Wilson and Herrald, who also designed Whyte Avenue’s Douglas Block, the Strathcona Fire Hall, the Strathcona Public Library, and the University of Alberta’s Rutherford House.[2]" does not appear in the body of the article.
• Most, if not all, of the second paragraph does not appear in the body of the article. If the McKernan family are that important (nearly one-third of the Lead) why are they not discussed in the article?
• Based on the Lead, since they are not mentioned, the Old Strathcona Foundation, Chinook Theatre, Paisley’s Fringe Theatre Event and the Edmonton International Fringe Festival, are not considered important. I don't know whether they are or not. The lead is about the right length for an article of this size, so it is just a matter of considering what need to be in it and what can come out.

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. As stated at the top of this review, I consider the article has the potential of becoming a GA during this review. The Lead is currently non-compliant and are problems with the prose. I'm happy to discuss points that are unclear. Pyrotec (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I still consider that the lead is a bit out of balance. I can't really write the Lead for you but this is the sort of thing I would have expected (the existing lead is a copy and paste of parts of the article, not a summary). What I done below is mostly British English, because I can't really do US and Canadian English (and its only rough). It does not really need cites, because its a summary and they are cited in the body of the article.

The Princess Theatre is a two-screen art-house cinema located at 10337 Whyte Avenue in Edmonton’s historic Old Strathcona neighbourhood. The building was designed for the McKernanby family, prominent property developers in Edmonton, by local architects Wilson and Herrald, who had designed other public buildings in Strathcona. It became the city’s oldest surviving cinema after the City of Edmonton demolished the Gem Theatre on Jasper Avenue in 2006 and currently houses the main 422-seat theatre as well as the 100-seat Princess II, located in the basement.

Originally known as the McKernan Block, after John W. McKernan, the Princess’s owner and manager until 1919. The Princess survived the collapse of Strathcona’s building boom in 1913 and was the only one to do so. Two other south side theatres the Gem and the South Side Bijou closed first. The theatre has changed ownership several times, and its fortunes have largely depended on the current state of the Canadian theatre industry. It spent a dozen years as a retail space from 1958–1970, and six years from 1970-1976 mainly exhibiting mainstream pornographic films. The Princess was operated successfully as a repertory theatre from 1978 to late 1996, after which it became a first run theatre. Since 1998, the Princess has been operated by Edmonton’s native Magic Lantern Theatres.

What about Old Strathcona Foundation (they refurbished the building), Paisley, independent basement theatre(s), threat from six-screen art house - I can't say whether they are important or not, that has to be your decision. The current lead is about the right length, but the balance is wrong, so the new lead should be about the same size as it currently is. Pyrotec (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it, clear: I believe the middle part of the Lead duplicates parts of the Silent erasection , so I'm not expecting that any text and references are lost from the article. Its only about removing duplicates. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have made edits to make the lead feel less copy/pasty. --Rawlangs (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's better. Pyrotec (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B.

   lists

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A.

   References to sources

   :

   Well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article has improved considerable during the review. I'm therefore happy to award it GA-status. Congratulations on a good article (as well as a Good Article). Pyrotec (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]